The other browser vendors have implemented EME, even IE, which is (caution, sarcasm ahead) well known for implementing the newest HTML5 technologies. Mozilla's only option was to rescue what could be rescued. Blame Google, MS and the MPAA instead, they have deserved the shitstorm.

No, it's not. Or at least, there are no clear arguments to support this claim (see the article from Cory Doctorow in Guardian, explaining this in more detail: http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]).

The only vague argument available is along the lines "netflix transfers a lot of data => it's important => we'll loose a lot of users if we don't support EME". Which is quite weak implication, IMNSHO. For example it's absolutely unsupported claim that users will abandon Firefox completely - there were times when I had to use IE occasionally, because dumb webdesigners made it work only with IE. But I was using FF or some other browser, because it was superior in every other aspect.

Second, it absolutely absolutely ignores countries not covered by Netflix - which is pretty much everywhere outside America and northern part of Europe.

And finally, this DRM is as futile as all the other DRM technologies - it's going to be broken sooner or later (rather sooner), and there are other ways to pirate movies. DVDs/blurays, recording DVB-T... so the only people not suffering by this are going to be pirates. Just like with all the previous technologies.

Anyway, I always thought the goal of Mozilla is not to acquire the highest browser marketshare, but to offer a truly open-source alternative. Also, browser is not the only project they have. This could have been a great education opportunity - showing a page briefly explaining the DRM issues, why Mozilla decided not to implement it, etc.

Partnership with Adobe, one of the companies most hostile towards open-source, that's a slap in the face.

However, Mozilla is not the only offender here - the first step was done by W3C, who allowed EME to be become part of the standard.

"there were times when I had to use IE occasionally, because dumb webdesigners made it work only with IE. But I was using FF or some other browser, because it was superior in every other aspect."EXACTLY. Those are the moments when you knew FF was doing it right, that made you more, not less loyal to FF. But then some suit somewhere figured that this would cause you to switch to IE full time (instead of reminding you why you avoid it) and so they ordered the developers to make FF more like the other browsers

With website js, your firefox already runs closed-source software all the time. Everything Mozilla creates and ships will be open source, and firefox will download the CDM and execute it in a sandbox, just like the js. I doubt that the sandbox chrome or IE have are as secure as the Firefox sandbox.

Mozilla must ask the user for their consent whether to install the CDM, as they must at least accept the license. This could be a good spot for Mozilla to explain that DRM is bad, while still allowing the user to

With website js, your firefox already runs closed-source software all the time. Everything Mozilla creates and ships will be open source, and firefox will download the CDM and execute it in a sandbox, just like the js. I doubt that the sandbox chrome or IE have are as secure as the Firefox sandbox.

I'm not using Chrome or IE, and I don't care how secure their sandboxes are. I simply don't agree with the DRM concept in general, because it limits my rights, the problems with reporting security issues, and it only affects the customers (not the actual pirates). And no, running a JS code is not the same as running the EME plugin.

Mozilla must ask the user for their consent whether to install the CDM, as they must at least accept the license. This could be a good spot for Mozilla to explain that DRM is bad, while still allowing the user to click "Yes, I want to restrict my freedom".

Given how much they praise Adobe (which is one of the worst companies cosidering approach to open-source), I doubt they'll have the courage to do that.

W3C allows EME to become a standard or not doesn' bother Microsoft or Google.

At the end of the day, it will be users who decide between Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, and the multitude of other options out there. These users will make their decision based upon a variety of factors. For some it will be access to DRMed content. For others it will be a completely open source product. Of course there are other reasons too.

I'm guessing that the Mozilla foundation tried to figure out what their user base wanted, and came up with the answer that content would keep more users than excluding the DRM module would. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. Only time will tell.

Let the default download of a new firefox randonly select either with- or without-DRM. Cound the number of times the same user goes back and selects a non-default browser from a list that explicitly says whether they have DRM or not.

Done well, no-one will even notice.

In this experiment, I expect the null hypothesis will be "no-one cares", and will win (:-))

If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?

It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).

If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?

It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).

The DRM is effectively forced.

I going to just flat out state that you've obviously never attempted to run the Netflix plugin from a ChromeOS machine (ChromeBook/ChromeBox) on another Linux platform, and discovered it won't run.

The modules in this case do navel-gazing and examine the container program to verify that the container program ins an unadulterated official build, such that you can't just compile up your own version of the browser, and expect the module to continue operating.

For Netflix on Linux desktops, this Navel-gazing took the form of utilizing the HAL, which was deprecated by its authors in 2008: http://www.freedesktop.org/wik... [freedesktop.org] which was then used to generate a unique device identifier, which was used in the authorization and decryption process for the data, after having been watermarked with the same identifier at the source so that you could tell who exactly rented the content that was then stripped of DRM, and uploaded to a copy site.

This same (deprecated) module was required by Adobe FlashAccess beginning in February 2012, and was the reason for the sudden failure of rented content from both Amazon and YouTube, which both used FlashAccess as a means of DRM'ing "premium content" starting on that date.

So it's about as true to say that the DRM "isn't forced" as it's to say that the HTML "trusted proxy" mechanism would not be forced in order to allow you to make HTTPS connections, should it be standardized, thus giving a centralized ISP choke point, nominally for caching content, but practically, for introspecting HTTPS streams to make sure they are not transporting "unapproved content". If you can't access content without DRM, or you can't access HTTPS without authorizing the proxy at your ISP to listen in on the conversation, effectively instituting an automatic MITM attack for all your communications, it's kind of hard to credit participation in the scheme as "unforced" (Sure... you could choose not to have encrypted internet connectivity at all, instead of encrypted activity your ISP or anyone who got a single FISA order into your ISP could listen in on, but is that really a choice?).

RMS is right in this case, DRM just harms everyone. Now Linux might play some more videos, but everyone who wants to run Amiga or Haiku, or another platform will be shutout from accessing that content. This is why DRM is stupid, it keeps the vendor/platform lock in going. For no good reason. It has never stopped pirates from doing their thing.

RMS is right in this case, DRM just harms everyone. Now Linux might play some more videos, but everyone who wants to run Amiga or Haiku, or another platform will be shutout from accessing that content. This is why DRM is stupid, it keeps the vendor/platform lock in going. For no good reason. It has never stopped pirates from doing their thing.

So DRM is bad because it stops people from accessing content, even though it's never actually done that? You've completely talked yourself into a circle.

It's not blocking progress. It's blocking anti-competitive poor practice. There's a very big difference there. There is no improvement to anyone to be gained from letting a lock-in solution take hold. Microsoft are a great example of this, by locking in gaming for the last 15 years, they've held back the development of gaming toolkits and graphics development on other platforms. Work which now has to be done quickly to provide an alternative platform to windows because they've decided they don't need the PC

Bending over and adding DRM might not exaclty be a good thing, but I can see how it might be necessary if they want to stay relevant. Though I have to say they really should have waited with that until DRM actually becomes relevant to the Web, jumping on the DRM train this early is really sending the wrong signal. Anyway what they should have done it also just ship the anti-DRM messures right in the browser as well. Add a function to screen capture videos of your browser interaction isn't all that difficult and would have nicely shown just how pontless the whole DRM thing is.

They are losing market share and their actions will accelerate, not reverse, that trend, just as previous missteps have done. And yes, life will go on, but a great opportunity has been lost. Firefox still has enough users that this matters, and they are throwing their weight behind DRM, and against the open web they claim to stand for at a critical moment. The notion this will get anyone to switch (back) to Firefox is ludicrous. The ones that left because they wanted something more like the other browsers are happy with their other browser, and the rest of us see this is a stab in the back not a feature.

They are losing market share and their actions will accelerate, not reverse, that trend, just as previous missteps have done.

Ah yes... previous missteps.

.
The last straw, the item that chased me off FireFox was the developers' stupid decision to lock down the reload and stop buttons on the FireFox UI. Yes, I know there is a "Classic" add-on that attempts to restore the previous look and feel of the UI. But like many add-ons, the quality level of that add-on is much lower than that of FireFox. I ran into too many issues trying to get that add-on to work properly. During my attempts, various items in the UI would actually di

I'm concerned that really, between having UEFI Boot forced on us, and now EME with FireFox, even Linux is losing the war against DRM and as such losing the war on Fair use computing rights entirely. I disgree that the Internet is becoming Cable 2.0, but, the issue is that really, this has escalated beyond a technology issue and into a law and society one. I don't see any real solution to this beyond massive changes at the governmental level. Like:

1. Repeal of the DMCA.2. Copyright roolled back to 14 years as it was at first3. No Software patents4. Internet Providers declared common carrier utilities.

I think this whole situation has been blown out of proportion.
How will this code, that allows loading a 3rd party DRM plugin, be conceptually different than the bit of code that allows loading other closed source plugins (Flash, Silverlight, etc)?

Possibly. However, what is adding to the fire is string of stupid decisions made by the FireFox developers. Those stupid decisions are convincing users that FireFox may be going in the wrong direction. Hence the uproar.

I think this whole situation has been blown out of proportion.How will this code, that allows loading a 3rd party DRM plugin, be conceptually different than the bit of code that allows loading other closed source plugins (Flash, Silverlight, etc)?

It doesn't.

I raised this point months ago when this whole DRM thing started and no one had a good explanation. I think the best explanation was "Yes, but it's encouraging it more." Not that I understand how an arbitrary plugin architecture encourages DRM any less. Cause that's what we have today.

no one is forcing Mozilla/Firefox to make this choice, except their own unscrupulous non-tech business people

I see this as Mozilla giving US the choice instead of making it for us. If they choose not to support DRM, then I have NO choice in watching DRM material with Firefox and I have to use another browser I dislike. By supporting a DRM plugin, "I" now get to choose whether to use it or not and if I choose not, then it doesn't affect my browsing experience at all.

But did the folks at Mozilla really have a choice when it comes adding DRM?

Of course they had. It's not like someone put a mind control spell on them.

That, exactly, is the point that the FSF is making and that some people complaining about the move make: That Free Software should differ from commercial software precisely because it can afford to make unpopular choices. It can do the right thing. And sometimes the right thing isn't the easy thing.

But that is the other side of freedom. Anyone can fight for freedom when the fight is easy. Think what you want about RMS and the FSF and

Mozilla is not taking privacy seriously, lately.Cache clear on Firefox does not really seem clear the cache.There is no way to clear the "Top Sites" in Firefox Mobile.There is no built in way clear on exit in Mozilla Mobile.

It's just decorative DRM; anyone who wants to can just loot the decrypted video at any point between the graphics card and your eyes. They can't lock down a picture and show it to you simultaneously, so this is just to prevent your average joe from copying the video onto their computer to watch later or whatever.

Don't some video chips already honor watermarking in the stream? Sure, it can be stripped out well enough to appear unwatermarked, but can it be obscured completely enough for a computer forensics professional to not find your name in lights?

When you have kids to feed you can be forced with money, as you can't just commit suicide when you're out of options and whatever will be will be with them, I mean you can but you're not supposed to. You're responsible for your kids more than you're responsible for your siblings or parents and cousins, because you choose to create them and bring them into being. The limit of what you're willing to do, how immoral you're willing to stoop to to feed them then goes very very far.

Just so we're clear, it's perfectly possible to support a family of four on $1000/month (less than one full-time, minimum wage, income), even without government subsidies, provided you're not trying to do so in a major city where rent for a studio apartment will cost $2000+. When somebody says they're being "forced with money" it very rarely means that their survival is in jeopardy, it means they want the luxuries that extra money can buy badly enough that they're willing compromise on whatever principles

No, but taking away your user's right to DRMed content is not protecting their freedom.

Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.

By using Firefox, you are tacitly supporting DRM, even if you never view and DRM'd content, because they have cooked the technology into the cake. It didn't have to be that way. They could have kept Firefox open and still allow the movie industry to peddle their poison.

So I'm a bit confused all this. How close is the following chain of events?

1. Netflix/___ others start trying to wrap their "tasty content" into wrappers that (try to) require baked in DRM.2. Uneducated Firefox users suddenly discover that their browser won't play that tasty content anymore "because Mozilla didn't add that Dr. Thingy stuff" to make it work.3. Said uneducated Firefox users then jump ship to that dulcet siren's call such as Chrome because yay the tasty content works again! "Everything is Awesome!"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

So what about PaleMoon? Scuttle has it a bunch of people are headed over that way not least because of FF29 UI Shenanigans. So why not DRM? Their entire point was to unbake bloaty parts of reg FF. So why not if they unbake the DRM from their copy?

And what does Opera have to say about all this? How about Chromium and/or Komodo Dragon? (Non-Googly clones of Chrome.)

So what about PaleMoon? Scuttle has it a bunch of people are headed over that way not least because of FF29 UI Shenanigans.

http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org] checked it out and it looks (sounds) good, I'll give that a try, didn't know there were so many different browsers out till this DRM thing.I like what Palemoon has to offer, more so what it doesn't. No clue what this "FF29 UI Shenanigans" is all about

And what does Opera have to say about all this? How about Chromium and/or Komodo Dragon? (Non-Googly clones of Chrome.)

Opera's irrelevant now and shouldn't be considered an alternative, I'm still running Opera 12 but many sites are starting to complain. 20 (?) some years worth of bookmarks and this is the end of my building on it.

Nonsense. All they needed was an HTML5 tag identifying DRM content that starts and external player that the user can decide to use or not use.

Um, how is that any different to the HTML5 tag identifying DRM content starting an external DRM plugin that the user can decide to use or not use, which is the exact system they are implementing.

They're even trying to completely sandbox the DRM plugin so it can't access anything on your computer other than the video stream, which is much better than having a proprietary binary application running at the user's access level.

I'm not particularly worried about Firefox providing a socket to plug in some DRM module into, because I don't really see much difference between that and other binary plugins. As a Linux user, I'm more worried that anyone who does want to use it will have to rely on Adobe to provide and maintain that module, because their track record has been rather spotty.

Would I use it myself? I honestly haven't made up my mind yet. From what I understand it would be mostly for movies, and my current computer is a bit t

I'm not particularly worried about Firefox providing a socket to plug in some DRM module into, because I don't really see much difference between that and other binary plugins. As a Linux user, I'm more worried that anyone who does want to use it will have to rely on Adobe to provide and maintain that module, because their track record has been rather spotty.

The big win from following a standard for the DRM plug-in is that now it will be obvious what's a DRM plug-in, and what's not. Hate DRM? Write a browser extension that makes use of this standard!

Seriously, if you really want to make heads asplode: write a FF extension that detects a DRM stream, determines the title from context, and automatically torrents the same title instead. If you can't do it as a plug-in, make a fork, since it's a stunt anyhow. I'm perfectly happy with paying Netflix, myself, but I'd certainly cheer if someone wrote this just to show the folly of the entire DRM approach.

1) DRM is bad.
2) Firefox implementing DRM is one piece of the problem.
3) Firefox is free to do whatever they want, but if they felt forced to implement DRM, it would have been better if they at least made an effort to warn the users about the risks. Instead they are publicly praising Adobe for their approach to DRM.

People who criticize RMS often don't even know what he said. That is not true of everyone, but most comments on the net are rather clueless about it. DRM is bad, that's not even controversial.

Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM. If you want the content, the choice is support the DRM or steal it. There are merits to both paths.

3) Firefox is free to do whatever they want, but if they felt forced to implement DRM, it would have been better if they at least made an effort to warn the users about the risks. Instead they are publicly praising Adobe for their approach to DRM.

Oh, God no! We are already way too overwarned. Turing every movie into the panic over self signed certs is NOT the answer.

People who criticize RMS often don't even know what he said. That is not true of everyone, but most comments on the net are rather clueless about it. DRM is bad, that's not even controversial.

Stalman is a brilliant man who has done a lot for computing in general. (Not just open source) He

No, Taxes and work are something you don't like, but are nessecary. Taxes pay for things like your clean drinking water, roads, street signs and lighting, all the things we actually like government for. Work allows you to purchase food, a place to sleep, clothes, a budget for entertainment.

DRM has no actual upside. There is no "Weeelll but roads are kinda nice" counter point. DRM is bad. Period. It doesn't work at it stated purpose, costs the people who implement it more money to use it, and those of up willing to bypass it do so trivially while those that are not willing suffer under new restrictions while actually being paying customers.

The only thing DRM is good for is keeping DRM manufacturers in business. It literally serves no useful purpose.

You can live perfectly fine without digital content. Not watching the latest movie isn't going to make you sick, like drinking polluted water is.

Watching videos on the internet is completely optional and is in no way comparable to public services.

If someone believes they benefit from using DRM, let them. You don't need their content, they would like your money though.As soon as they realise they'll make more money without it, they'll stop using it.If they actually do make more money with it, who are you to

Part of DRM is that it stops consumers from fulfilling their role in the "supply and demand" marketplace.Content providers sell content for different prices in different regions. DRM prevents you from buying content at market prices.Content is sold internationally, consumers should be able to buy content internationally or the market is artificially distorted by the sellers.

As soon as they realise they'll make more money without it, they'll stop using it.

Nice idea, but you could be waiting a very long time.The only two times I'm aware of this happening is in music downloads and old video games (e.g. GOG.com). Why these two markets? Because a song or an ancient game past its prime is a "cheap" asset that there's little for the content provider to lose on. Nothing has happened yet in the higher dollar-purchase value markets of movies, TV, e-books, AAA video games or AAA productivity software titles to convince the content creators that DRM isn't making them m

I remain extremely skeptical of the idea that DRM does literally nothing. It'l like saying door locks don't work because they can be kicked down or picked, or somebody can go through the window. Imperfect security *can* be better than no security, depending on the circumstance.

I'm not coming out pro-DRM, just...this argument doesn't make sense. I know for a fact my parents could never be bothered to learn how to use bittorrent. They just went and bought it instead when I moved out. Which implies that it does work to at least some degree. Not necessarily that the benefit exceeds the cost, but I don't think it's fundamentally honest to say that DRM has no benefit for anybody.

Sorry, but Firefox adding DRM, in whatever manner they are, is still a shift in the browser industry going forward. There isn't a mainstream browser, that I see, committed to FOSS philosophies out there anymore. I just heard about Pale Moon, but let's face it folks. Firefox, Chrome and IE are mainstream. The others are side projects. Safari, well, doesn't exist on Linux does it. Even I.E. can be shoe-horned on Linux if needed.

Point is, moving forward, there is no longer a major browser that hasn't caved to big media, and DRM. That is, in itself, a continuation of a disturbing trend we're seeing across the Internet, and computing in general. If you don't think this isn't part of that, you haven't been paying attention.

Uh, most people understand why taxes are a good thing. There are people who feel that we are being taxed too much, but there aren't many people who want to get rid of taxes. Some form of taxation is necessary for the operation of the government.

Oh, God no! We are already way too overwarned.

Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read [gnu.org], and don't understand why DRM could be problematic. As long as it doesn't get in the way, they are fine with it.

Most people don't know the risks of DRM, a lot of people don't even know what DRM is. YOU might have been overwarned, but most people have never heard of The Right to Read [gnu.org], and don't understand why DRM could be problematic.

The thing is...we don't have "the right to read". If I write something, you don't get the right to read it. I might give you my permission to read it, but I don't have to.

In his story, RMS was conflating "first sale rights" into "I should be able to do anything with any book, any time I want, regardless of the author's wishes". Basically, he took his free software opinions and twisted them to apply to books as well. I do agree that DRM can remove some of your first sale rights, and that's a real pain. Y

I'm a socialist. And by that I mean that I'm strongly against both capitalism and communism. I believe everyone should profit from his work and only from his own work. I believe it should be illegal to profit from someone else's work. So you can guess I'm also totally against social democracy and taxation.

Nope. It is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that there is lots of content that people want that is only legally available with DRM.

That's exactly right! But the anti-DRM crew seem intent on attacking the symptom rather than the root cause - and have been fighting that losing battle for years. It's time to wake up and realise that if you convince the content producers to stop their use of DRM or get users to avoid content that uses DRM then DRM will disappear. Blocking DRM in Firefox will just cause content producers and users to support a different browser.

Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.

Oh wait, no, I don't.

It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM. Between the easy accessibility of non-DRM - albeit copyright-infringing - music and a company (Apple) with a large enough market-share to say, "You know what, screw DRM!", nowadays I can download all my songs in unencumbered MP3s. And - despite all their fears to the contrary - the music industry hasn't gone bankrupt because of this. Given an equitable price, combined with the convenience and legitimacy of an above-board purchase, music sales continue to be profitable.

Firefox had an opportunity to be an Apple here; they could have helped redirect the market into a new direction. Instead they caved into prophetic bullshit about declining marketshare and now all its users suffer for their shortsightedness. Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.

Apple is a company with enough marketshare (in fact they almost monopolized the business of selling music online at a time), Mozilla isn't. Apple then did exactly what I was saying and pushed back on the content producers.

It is not a losing battle to fight against DRM.

These days there is more DRM encumbered media and streaming services than ever before!

Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit idea" and rather than sacrifice that huge potential audience the media conglomerates would have found a more favorable alternative.

I like your optimism but I don't think Mozilla have that much clout. Perhaps it's time to fork Firefox? Though I'm pretty sure there are quite a lot of popular forks already that are unlikely to implement this DRM so maybe one of them should make an attempt to do what you say.

Which is why all the music I buy these days is so heavily encumbered with DRM. Despite the shrill protests of the public, the only way to get the content was to accept DRM on my music files.

Oh wait, no, I don't.

[...]

Firefox had an opportunity to be an Apple here; they could have helped redirect the market into a new direction. Instead they caved into prophetic bullshit about declining marketshare and now all its users suffer for their shortsightedness. Mozilla could have said to big media, "this is a shit i

Let's not also forget two other particularly powerful points made in the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) essay:

"We understand that Mozilla is afraid of losing users. Cory Doctorow points out [theguardian.com] that they have produced no evidence to substantiate this fear or made any effort to study the situation."

"More importantly, popularity is not an end in itself. This is especially true for the Mozilla Foundation, a nonprofit with an ethical mission. In the past, Mozilla has distinguished itself and achieved success by protecting the freedom of its users and explaining the importance of that freedom: including publishing Firefox's source code, allowing others to make modifications to it, and sticking to Web standards in the face of attempts to impose proprietary extensions."

Brad Kuhn builds on these points in his essay discussing Mozilla's announcement [ebb.org]: "Theoretically speaking, though, the Mozilla Foundation is supposed to be a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity which told the IRS [mozilla.com] its charitable purpose was: to "keep the Internet a universal platform that is accessible by anyone from anywhere, using any computer, and... develop open-source Internet applications". Baker fails to explain how switching Firefox to include proprietary software fits that mission. In fact, with a bit of revisionist history, she says that open source was merely an "approach" that Mozilla Foundation was using, not their mission."

Speaking of how people criticize the FSF without reading what they say, the FSF is not an "open source advocate" despite/.'s insistence to the contrary such as is stated in this story's headline. The FSF and the free software movement predate the developmental methodology known as open source, and the FSF fights for values the open source movement sets out to deny, namely software freedom. The FSF has published more than one essay on this topic (1 [gnu.org], 2 [gnu.org]) and RMS includes a clear and cogent explanation of this point in virtually every talk you'll hear him give. Archives of these talks are readily available online [gnu.org] in formats that favor free software. Mozilla's choice here is another example of reaching radically different conclusions given different philosophies: Mozilla's open source choice versus a free software activist's choice to reject DRM for many valid reasons the FSF points out.

We at Mozilla do not regard popularity as an end in itself. Instead, we regard it as an essential part of our strategy for executing on our mission. The amount of influence we have to make the Internet better is, in many spheres, proportional to Firefox market share.

As to whether we'd lose users due to Netflix, Hulu etc eventually not working in Firefox... nobody seriously doubts this.

Brad Kuhn misquotes Mitchell. She did not say "an approach", she said "MozillaÃ(TM)s fundamental approach".

Not for from it... From what I hear the idea is that when the content industry makes the majority of it's revenue from online streaming, they'll likely reconsider DRM. Most likely it'll go away on it's own, because it's complicated and expensive to implement on the server side. And it provides a buggy user experience.

I suspect that eventually netflix will be ones with the power to kill DRM. Imagine how much cheaper their distribution would be, if they didn't have to encrypt every stream individually.

Is there a single word from Mozilla's current leadership that makes you think this could even theoretically be true? Because I've looked, and been unable to find even a hint that they intend to drop DRM at any point in the future.

Clearly trolling, but you have perfectly expressed "the enemy's" stance on DRM. "We" need DRM because some people want to preserve their positions of power over the information-have-nots, simple as that.

And I don't even mean music and movies, we can live without those. I mean textbooks; I mean research journal access; I mean "for profit" municipal codes of law; I mean for-profit industry standards specs; I mean proprietary and impenetrable pricing structures like health insurance fees.

So although you troll us, you magnificent bastard, you also have one of the insightful posts on this topic so far.

Blocking something because RMS does not approve is the opposite of freedom, be it DRM, a binary driver, or whatever.

And denying people the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is also "the opposite of freedom."However, there's also the caveat that it's better for society to limit certain freedoms,because otherwise they would otherwise impinge on all of us in a negative way.

Mozilla are not just supporting DRM, you could already view DRM media, the significant development is their supporting for the addition of DRM to the web in a claimed standard, a damaging development for the open web. Mozilla had the choice of supporting the viewing of DRM media outside the web, by using a plugin or by using a separate media player. The DRM web interface they have decided to support, the EME, in not even capable of playing media on it's own, it is just part of a play and the rest is proprie

Nice strawmen there. This new DRM plugin is just as option as Flash and Silverlight currently are, did anyone come round your house and hold a gun to your head to force you to install them? No? Well I guess you can choose to not install any DRM plugins then.

I think this is key, people are conflating "Mozilla is allowing the option of running a separate, external, close sourced, plugin" (which as you point out is no different than Flash/Silverlight) as being "OMG Mozilla is closed source now and ever single webpage has DRM now!!11"

Unfortunately, it is easier for some people to let other people to think for them, instead of doing it themselves. Such as, some people have difficulty to see RMS' is not the only ethical analysis of the current political and technical situation of IT.
At the most basic level; If there is a software utility exist in a platform I use,I can choose to use or not to use it, so I have the freedom. If such utility does not exist I cannot decide to use it so I do not have the freedom....

Legal vs. illegal isn't particularly cut and dried in general. But arguments alone normally aren't illegal, provided they avoid weaponry and stay within reasonable volume limits. Admittedly, the second of these seems hard to achieve on the Internet.

There is a big difference between a proprietary plugin using a generic interface, and supporting an open web specification designed specifically to support DRM, a specification that does not even allow the viewing of the resource without further proprietary JS supplied by the distributor. It's anti-competitive and damaging to the open web community. How hard will it be to promote an alternative now that Mozilla back the EME, almost impossible, and this is the damage Mozilla have done.

The distributors (and the Hollywood studios that provide them with content) will never accept an "alternative" that has no DRM.

So for Mozilla the choice wasn't "support EME" vs "promote a better DRM free alternative and convince websites to support it", it was "support EME" vs "tell users who want to use HuLu, Netflix etc to use a different browser"

I for one like the way Mozilla has done it, the browser plugin can't talk to anything other than a narrowly defined set of interfaces specified by Mozilla (so no direct network or disk access). Also, I believe the plugin will be available for Linux as well which means sites like Netflix will work on that platform.

The EME is only part of a media player, the part with the DRM decoder, and it can not play content on its own. The distributors supply proprietary JS to make a complete media player. This locks users into using their web base media player and destroys the market for such media players. This was a deliberate tactic by the distributors, they refused to specify a complete standard. It damages the interests of users.
Mozilla's support for the EME makes it much more difficult for the open web community to prom

Yes, but adding DRM to the web is actually driven by the distributors, such as Netflix. DRM movies can already be viewed using plugins or separate media players. Netflix want the EME so that they can delivery a rich[sic] experience, beyond just viewing a DRM movie, and the EME is not a compete DRM media player, just a part of it, allowing the distributors to complete the web media player using proprietary JS and lock users into using their web media players. They will likely be able to patent some of the pr